Following all the sabre-rattling about the MiG-29 vs F-16 on this forum, I decided to start this thread that would lead to the final verdict after a Blitzkrieg of intelligent posts.

The Falcon…and……

http://www.rob.clubkawasaki.com/an84.jpg

...the Falcon Hunter……

http://www.f4aviation.co.uk/airshow02/berlin/mig29.jpg

It was after the Kargil War when PAF F-16s were locked on at maximum range by a BVRAAM armed Mig-29 that kept them at bay that the famed Fulcrum got the nick name ‘Falcon Hunter’ in IAF circles.

Mr_Vastu

27 Jan 05,, 12:13

Airframes and Aerodynamics

With regards to aerodynamics, the MiG-29s superior speed (Mach 2.35) and cobra manouveribility itself supercedes the F-16 that barely makes it to Mach 2.0 due to structural fatigue, only accelerating to fire its missiles. While the MiG-29 was designed with an AoA (Angle of Attack) of upto 45 deg., the F-16 was never designed to stall something that prevents the aircraft from getting into situations where it could stall or break apart from excessive gravity forces mounting on the structurally weak F-16 hull. The twin finned, lift-generating fuselage design ensures agile handling, and stability at extreme speeds making the Fulcrum more than a match for any fighter plane in its class.

The few Air Forces that operate the F-16s are well aware of hairline cracks developing in their F-16 hulls. Wing cracks and afterburner problems would be the reason why the USAF retire all of its pre-Block 15 'small tail' ships while production of some airframes of which many were singel-seat F-16N's and double-seat TF-16N's were also found with multiple hair cracks discovered in several bulckheads, believed to have ultimately being stored then replaced by embargoed ex-Pakistani F-16s :tongue: The Air National Guard just checked its fleet of F-16s after inspectors found a number of hairline cracks in the engines of F-16s at Luke Air Force Base in Glendale. Compared to the Falcon the MiGs twin finned, lift-generating fuselage LERX airframe is more solid and sturdy. With the F-16A the AoA limit is just 25deg where as the MiG-29 has been cleared of an AoA of up to 45deg, this is where it gets impossible for the F-16 to dogfight with the MiG.

Mr_Vastu

27 Jan 05,, 12:14

Aircraft Engines

So far the Two Klimov/Sarkisov RD-33 turbofans each powering the MiG with 18,200 lb thrust with afterburning push the Fulcrum to higher Mach numbers way above Mach 2.2 while the F110-GE-132 engine, the highest-thrust fighter engine ever developed for the Falcon ensures that the F-16 barely makes it to Mach 2.0 due to the jets structural weakness. This clearly shows the RD-33 engines superiority over the F-16s not to mention the new VK-10M, being developed by Klimov for production from 2010, with a thrust of upto 24,250 to 23,350 lb st. and thrust vectoring assisted. These would be used by the navalised variants supposedly to be operated with the Indian Navy. The R-33 turbofan engines, provide a thrust to weight ratio higher than unity for highest manoeuvrability which no western fighter can match to this day.

It was dreaded engine failures that caused the USAF to ground nearly 400 F-16s following several engine related crashes at Luke AFB a few years back, nearly one third of the F-16 fleet the USAF has in its inventory. Like the USAF F-16 that developed engine failure, particularly the high pressure turbine post, causing the HPT blades to break free and damage the engine another example was a RNoAF F-16 departing Banak Airbase lost its engine in flight due to a turbine failure and went down in flames. Earlier on Thailand had grounded each and every F-16 they had and so did Israel after having problems with their F-16D. The main spate of these failures in the F-16s are due to various factors, not one. One cause of the crash was numerous cracks in the afterburner wall which caused fire to spread. Others speculate are weld failures in the augmentor ducts. Its such careless planning and designing of the plane itself that makes engine nozzle and entire augmentor assemblies get detached at high speeds which is why most F-16s were designed to only make it to Mach 1.9. For poorer nations like Egypt and Pakistan with no replacement of spares for third stage fan blades and disc, and retrofitting of an improved low-pressure turbine module the F-16s would become more vulnerable to crashes. As for FOD problems, the lower edge of the Falcons intake lip is only 38 inches above the ground, which is not surprising why many F-16s deployed to police Iraq and Afghanistan crashed in those countries.

Although the US sources claim that the F-16s engine is one of the safest to fly, being a simple fighter this is not the case as becomes very clear of the fact that General Dynamics got sued for errors in the F-16 which are actually multiple problems. From mechanical failures of the main thrust bearings leading ultimately to engine failures to structural failures getting into situations where an F-16 could stall or break apart from excessive gravity forces you name it, the F-16 had it right from its design inception. Another report suggested accidental cause due to failure of the high pressure turbine post, allowing the HPT blades to break free and damage the engine something that’s almost unheard of as regards the sturdy Tumansky or Kilmov engine designs. Those engines are meant to take quite a beating, from rough whether and rugged airfield landings to desert sand storms. It is quite like comparing the F-16s to IAFs age old MiG-21s dubbed the ‘Flying Coffins’ which most pilots would even dread flying during peacetime, but those are 20 years older than the first F-16s.

Mr_Vastu

27 Jan 05,, 12:16

Radar Avionics and Weapon Systems

In an air combat situation, it is the plane that approaches the target first and fires first that becomes the winning killer. With a high approach speed of Mach 2.3 a MiG-29 would close in on an F-16 and shoot it down with its superior array of BVRAAMs. All F-16 pilots know that any aircraft within 45deg's of the nose of a MiG-29 has a zero chance of survivability. And as discussed earlier in ACM mode the helmet mounted sight coupled with the AA-11 Archer gives the Mig 29 a kill zone greater than any aircraft serving, the rude shock the Falcon pilots got while up against those Luftwaffe Fulcrums. The Fulcrums fire control and mission computers link radar with a laser rangefinder and IRST sensor in conjunction with helmet mounted laser target designator (HMLTDS) wherein targets can be approached and engaged without emission of detectable radar or radio signals. Also Russian electrical systems in the MiG-29 are far more superior to weak electrical systems of the west, the reason for most F-16, Blackhawk and Apache avionics and computer systems crashing and giving way in blazing hot desert regions like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Further more, the radar in combination with the laser rangefinder and IRSTS allows the pilot, who wears a helmet-mounted target designator, to approach and engage targets in electronically silent mode, not giving the frenzied Falcon pilot even a clue hes being aimed and about to be shot at :eek: :tongue: The MiGs have radars with wider scan and track angles inazimuth: +/-60 degress for the F-16C, +/-70 for the MiG-29 The Zhuk M’s acquisition range has increased 1.5 times and features a wide scan and tracking area of +/- 85 deg. in azimuth and +/- 60 deg. in elevation, terrain following mode and ground target acquisition mode including high resolution modes. The original MiG-29B had Phazotron N-019/RP-29 Saphir (Sapphire; NATO reporting name 'Slot Back') multi-mode Doppler radar. This had reasonable range, about 100 km (60 statute miles) against fighter-sized targets, and a 10-target tracking ability, but its processing capability was limited, and it was not easy to use. Later radars will be the Phazotron Zhuk type, capable of tracking ten targets to a maximum range of 150 miles. In response the Soviets hastily developed a modified N-019M Topaz radar for the upgraded MiG-29S aircraft. The latest upgrade aircraft offer the N-010 Zhuk-M, which has a flat planar antenna rather than a dish, improving range, and much superior processing ability, with multiple target engagement capability and compatibility with the RVV-AE (NATO AA-12 'Adder') air-to-air missile.
A useful feature of the MiG-29, shared with the Su-27, is the S-31E2 KOLS, a combined laser rangefinder and infrared search and track (IRST) in an 'eyeball' mount foreward of the cockpit canopy. This can be slaved to the radar or used independently, and provides exceptional gun-laying accuracy. Much of which are the attributes of the MiG-29 ‘Sniper’ which can easily kill any F-16 variant with ease.

Mr_Vastu

27 Jan 05,, 12:18

Missiles and Armament

Compared to the MiG-29s BVRAAMs what the F-16 has is basically dogfight missiles from a bygone era of Vietnamese air warfare. If the west claims they’re superior to Russia in electronic warfare, the Russians are definitely superior to the west in terms of rocketry and propulsion systems. While the AIM-9 which is the oldest and cheapest missile going, probably used with F-16s serving poorer nations the AIM-120 is not far better. Aerodynamically, the R-27 which arms the Fulcrum is superior to the AMRAAM with a range of 130 km, while other variants have a maximum range of between 70 to 170 kilometers. Whereas the R-77RVV-AE has a range of 100 km, with the seeker locking on at around 20 km, and a maximum speed of Mach 4.5. Its range puts it in the long-range class and is equivalent to that of the AIM-54 Phoenix. At this rate the AIM-120 is no where near the R-77 since it has a range of only 50 km (30 miles), 50 km less than the superior R-77.
French air-to-air missiles such as the Super 530D and Magic-II can also be carried by MiG-29s in service with the IAF :cool:

Mr_Vastu

27 Jan 05,, 12:19

Cockpit Ergonomics

The Fulcrum’s cockpit has conventional dials, with HUD, etc. Emphasis seems to have been placed on making the cockpit similar to the earlier MiG-23 and other Soviet aircraft for ease of conversion, rather than on ergonomics. Nonetheless, the MiG-29 does have substantially better visibility than most previous Russian jet fighters. Upgrade models introduce 'glass' cockpits with modern CRT multi-function displays and true HOTAS. The seat is also less declined backward as compared to that of an F-16. Whereas the Goldfish bowl canopy of the F-16 – the Sabre styled bubble cockpit with the 30deg inclined pilot seat with that ‘sidey’ side stick system ;) is not what most pilots would just hate. We’re not fighting Korean or Vietnamese style here, where you need have a view to a kill, we’re talking BVR air combat at Mach 2. With high mounting speeds and crushing Gs an F-16 pilot fighting the ‘seat of the pants’ effect, straining his neck forward from his inclined seat would find the F-16s cockpit a pain in the neck and a pain in the ass as well :) :) :tongue: :tongue:

Mr_Vastu

27 Jan 05,, 12:21

Service Life and Maintenance

Like the MiG-21 Fishbeds that saw Korean styled dogfighting over Vietnam with unguided bombs and rockets to the MiG-21-93 of the IAF with BVRAAMs and HMS systems getting modified upto their fourth generation upgrades, the MiG-29s too would undergo various upgrade programs with new variants in the export market. From the a super-maneuverable MiG-29OVT variant, with three-dimensional thrust-vectoring engine nozzles to the Plasma Stealth Mig-29 SMTs, MiG-30 and ‘33’ Fulcrums the Fulcrum is going to be another air superiority cousin to the formidable Flankers. With the MiG-29K program itself revived in response to the decision of the Indian Navy to acquire the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier, the Fulcrum stands to last in service for the next three decades way into the 2040s :) long after the last breed of Falcons would have become extinct :redface: Also due to the its structural fatigue, the F-16s service life is expected to be until 2015, after which most wont be airworthy if one goes by the current maintenance service standards.

Mr_Vastu

27 Jan 05,, 12:23

Variants

While advanced versions of the MiG-29s like the MiG-33s, SMT would all fly at speeds in excess of Mach 2.3, the F-16 and its clones, the F-16 XL, IAI Lavi, etc. all keep chugging along hard to make it to Mach 1.8 way below a Mach 2 class jet. The more advanced the F-16 gets, the slower it goes with the F-16XL and Lavi both being believed to have been advanced versions of the F-16, yet flying very much slower.

New variants of the mig-29 such as MiG-29M2, MiG-29SMT and MiG-29UTB, incorporate a number of design changes. These include updated avionics, Western-style cockpit equipment, new powerful radars and, most importantly, enlarged fuel capacity giving the aircraft considerably extended range, the most advanced of all MiG-29 developments.

Some Mig-29 Upgrades include :

MiG-29SMT-II (Factory index 9.17-II): Further upgrades to the SMT are already planned or on offer, under provisional designation MiG-29SMT-II. Improvements include frontal RCS reduction measures, IR signature reduction and further increases in fuel tankage and warload. Fuel capacity to be increased to 5,600 kg (12,346 lb) through installation of new 219 litre (58.0 US gallon; 48.0 Imp gallon) tanks in LERX, replacing auxiliary air intakes and ducts, as in MiG-29M and original SMT scheme. Eight hardpoint wing (either based on MiG-29M, with broad span ailerons, or merely rebuilt standard wing) will allow warload increase to 5,500 kg (12,125 lb). Potential avionics improvements include new radar (N010, Zhuk, Zhuk PH or NIIR Zemchug). Some expect future MiG-29 variants to receive a new engine, the VK-10M, being developed by Klimov for production from 2010, with a thrust of 108 to 113 kN (24,250 to 23,350 lb st). Thrust vectoring may be offered. May use triple redundant digital FBW FCS developed for MiG-29M.

MiG-29OVT: MIG-29 version with 3-d thrust-vectoring nozzles. A fully representative prototype is due to fly by the year-end or early 2002. The nozzles installed on MIG-29OVT can move in any direction over the rear hemisphere at any range of engine operation, offering the aircraft astounding manoeuverability. Fire-control system including, Phazotron Zhuk-M radar and the full range of air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, including the R-77 air-to-air missile and the KH-31 and KH-35 air-to-surface missiles.

MiG-29 Sniper: The upgraded MiG-29 SNIPER was first demonstrated in Berlin- ILA 2000 and Timisoara Air Shows . The SNIPER maiden flight on 5th May 2000 demonstrated that the cooperation between Daimler Chrysler Aerospace (now EADS), AEROSTAR S.A. from Romania and ETBIT SYSTEM Ltd. from Israel was completely fruitful. The Parties utilized an aircraft that is used in the Romanian Air Force, extended the aircraft life and upgraded it with enhanced avionics.

MiG-29K-2008: upgrade configuration could add a computer upgrade and additional electro-optic, radar, IIR and recce pods, together with take-off performance improvements. In December 1999, it was reported that India had selected the MiG-29K for use aboard Admiral Gorshkov, and an initial order for 50 aircraft.

A MiG-29 Sniper taking off from a rough terrain airfield only goes to show the ruggedness of these new Fulcrums :

http://letectvi.wz.cz/rusko/mig29/sniper.jpg

Mr_Vastu

27 Jan 05,, 12:25

Specifications

And finally, to add the "coup de grace" to this thread the MiG-29 is the ‘Falcon Hunter’ as :

The Mig-29 is faster than the F-16 : Mach 2.35 as compared to Mach 1.9

The Mig-29 has been credited with an F-117 ‘Night Hawk’ kill, so the non-stealth Falcon would be too easy a kill :eek: :cool: :cool: .

ajaybhutani

27 Jan 05,, 16:12

vastu the prob is that Mig29 still lacks the current avionics ( we all know that russian avionics are not as good as the western ones esp the american) . The stuff u talked about is limited to indian Mig29 or may be a few other and the ones that will be rolled out in the near future. Now if we compare them with the F16 Blk 60 with aesa which some of the nations are recently procuring then the picture is not so bright.

About the engine of mig29 we all know how shitty the R33 engine is. This forced india to look out for american engines for their LCA rahter than the R33 which was already available to them. so clearly i donot approve of ur analysis of Mig29 engine as better.

The F16 mostly have an advantage of using the AWAC radar cover which the Mig29s mostly donot have

The western ECMS are better .
the comparison of aerial target rage of radar done by u for which version of Mig29 with whcih version of F16. Frankly it surely dsnt look like an AESA radar range.

U used the range of aim120A for comparison but the AIM120C is already in service and i ahvent been able to find out its range yet. So one cannot really say how far away the latest aim120C can go .

Tronic

28 Jan 05,, 04:47

ajay... i'm pretty sure the F-16's don't get AESA.

troung

28 Jan 05,, 05:35

"It was after the Kargil War when PAF F-16s were locked on at maximum range by a BVRAAM armed Mig-29 that kept them at bay that the famed Fulcrum got the nick name ‘Falcon Hunter’ in IAF circles."

Cute. So that would make USAF/RNAF F-16s "MiG-29 killers" right?

You know the USAF/RNAF F-16s have shot down MiG-29s but no MiG-29 has shot down an F-16.

"ajay... i'm pretty sure the F-16's don't get AESA."

The UAEAF F-16E/F B-60 has the APG-80 which is an AESA set, oh yeah and it also has an IRST as well along with CFTs.

"If the west claims they’re superior to Russia in electronic warfare, the Russians are definitely superior to the west in terms of rocketry and propulsion systems."

Russian missiles have had the lowest hit ratios of any nations type.... the R-13, R-23, R-24, R-40, R-60 and R-27R have all blown in REAL life...

What is with morons opeing this topic over and over again....

Bill

28 Jan 05,, 09:30

"ajay... i'm pretty sure the F-16's don't get AESA."

The Block60 Falcons have AESA radar.

indianbomb

28 Jan 05,, 11:30

Torng, I agree that the F-16s have kills against the Fulcrum. However you have to also see the scenario and the opposition in which the kills were made. I dont consider Arab air forces as quality opposition. I am damn sure that if they flew the falcon and the Israelis/US flew the Migs you would still make the kills. You cant put a camel driver into a cadillac and expect him to beat a schumacher.

MIKEMUN

28 Jan 05,, 12:56

Torng, I agree that the F-16s have kills against the Fulcrum. However you have to also see the scenario and the opposition in which the kills were made. I dont consider Arab air forces as quality opposition. I am damn sure that if they flew the falcon and the Israelis/US flew the Migs you would still make the kills. You cant put a camel driver into a cadillac and expect him to beat a schumacher.

Very bad analogy...A lot of camel drivers now have Caddies... :biggrin: And you don't race in a caddilac in Formula One... :tongue:

troung

28 Jan 05,, 21:54

"I am damn sure that if they flew the falcon and the Israelis/US flew the Migs you would still make the kills. You cant put a camel driver into a cadillac and expect him to beat a schumacher."

America would never build a limited plane like the MiG-29 and we sure as hell would never deploy it anywhere.

Israel would never buy a plane like the MiG-29 either.

Bluesman

28 Jan 05,, 22:43

The Fulcrum has NOT shot down any F-117s, laddie. You're getting bad gouge.

No F-117 has not been lost in ANY air-to-air engagement.

Terran empire

28 Jan 05,, 22:53

"I am damn sure that if they flew the falcon and the Israelis/US flew the Migs you would still make the kills. You cant put a camel driver into a cadillac and expect him to beat a schumacher."

America would never build a limited plane like the MiG-29 and we sure as hell would never deploy it anywhere.

Israel would never buy a plane like the MiG-29 either.
Other then In a "Aggressor" or threat evaluation Mission Role that is.

ajaybhutani

28 Jan 05,, 23:41

"I am damn sure that if they flew the falcon and the Israelis/US flew the Migs you would still make the kills. You cant put a camel driver into a cadillac and expect him to beat a schumacher."

America would never build a limited plane like the MiG-29 and we sure as hell would never deploy it anywhere.

Israel would never buy a plane like the MiG-29 either.
Lemme make it straight
mig 29 airframe is much more capable than f16.
Its the avionics radar etc that make F16 better .
Now if the israelis want to get mig29 and then fit it with avionics radars which they can then they will get a better plane than F16 with same avionics . But they have more bindings for US didnt even allow them to continue with their lavi program . Thers no way they can think of buying any plane non american in origin and production.
mig29 is not limited . Just fit them with avionics radar etc and u'll get a hell good of a plane but surely russians havent yet and cannot as of now feild the same level of electronics as the americans which has limited the capabilities of the mig29 against F16 .

troung

29 Jan 05,, 00:16

"Now if the israelis want to get mig29 and then fit it with avionics radars which they can then they will get a better plane than F16 with same avionics ."

The MiG-29 Sniper was an export program Israel never had plans to buy it just to make money by selling the upgrade. Hell the program has been canceled anyways.

"mig29 is not limited"

Yes it is more then just radar, weapons and avoinics limited compared to the F-16. We could not have sent MiG-29s to Afghanistan for example or to launch missions over Iraq, Serbia or hell even Panama...

"Other then In a "Aggressor" or threat evaluation Mission Role that is."

I meant as in a plane we would ever dream of using in combat in the way we currenlty use our planes.

indianbomb

29 Jan 05,, 05:06

I was trying to throw light on the man in the machine, the men behind it, the training standards and the overall military objectives. Comparing fighter history must involve this crucial parameter too. If however you wish to just comment of the abilities of the two planes I agree with Ajay that the mig airframe is more capable while the F-16 is way above in avionics. With most of the kills happening in BVR environment I am not surprised that the F-16 is leading. The mig may serve the 'threat evaluation role' in the west but in countries like India it is a frontline fighter pitted against neighbouring F-16s, and hence this debate is very pertinant. I belive that the Indian Mig avionics have been upgraded internally and the process is a continuing one to bridge the electronic gap.

ajaybhutani

29 Jan 05,, 08:09

indianbomb
Cearly the indian mig29s have been upgraded and are good in performance. But still their competence with the F16 bLk50/60 is is what i m still sceptical about.

The neighbouring F16's can even be shot down by our BVR capable mig21 upg . They offer nearly no resistance or edge to pakistan due to their lack of BVR.

troung

29 Jan 05,, 20:15

" was trying to throw light on the man in the machine, the men behind it, the training standards and the overall military objectives."

The point was the USA would never have built such a totally limited plane. The MiG-29 would not fit into American combat doctrine. It was simply to limited of a plane...

"The mig may serve the 'threat evaluation role' in the west but in countries like India it is a frontline fighter pitted against neighbouring F-16s, and hence this debate is very pertinant."

Well India like a lot of other nations bought the MiG-29 due to the Russians twisting arms and selling cheap. The Mirage 2000E/D was the prefered plane. The same with the Yugoslavians and Iraqis. Even Burma sacked a top officer when he pointed out the MiG-29 was less capable then the Mirage 2000 and no match for the F-16s they would face...

If you guys would try and drop the pretences of comparing the families and focus on one region the discussion would change pace you might say...

"But still their competence with the F16 bLk50/60 is is what i m still sceptical about."

Wouldn't even bother to compare them if I were you.

"The neighbouring F16's can even be shot down by our BVR capable mig21 upg . They offer nearly no resistance or edge to pakistan due to their lack of BVR."

We are talking about Pakistan...

bull

30 Jan 05,, 17:33

"Now if the israelis want to get mig29 and then fit it with avionics radars which they can then they will get a better plane than F16 with same avionics ."

The MiG-29 Sniper was an export program Israel never had plans to buy it just to make money by selling the upgrade. Hell the program has been canceled anyways.

"mig29 is not limited"

Yes it is more then just radar, weapons and avoinics limited compared to the F-16. We could not have sent MiG-29s to Afghanistan for example or to launch missions over Iraq, Serbia or hell even Panama...

"Other then In a "Aggressor" or threat evaluation Mission Role that is."

I meant as in a plane we would ever dream of using in combat in the way we currenlty use our planes.

compare it with the upgraded mig29 available with the isreali avionics and sasy which one looks better..or lets put it this way...
1. Which one of these two wud be able to lock the other first
2.Whats the max range of the radar of both...tk the best variant of both.
3.Whats the max range of the AAM which both these carries.

Dont take into consideration upgradation in consideration but the one whih is available right now at the stables of airforces around th world.

one more....has pakistan done any upgradation to its f16 like increasing the radar range or getting longer range AAM to its f16

troung

31 Jan 05,, 02:09

.....//....//....//.....//...//....///.....

bull

31 Jan 05,, 05:58

.....//....//....//.....//...//....///.....

troung what was that???? :eek:

Mr_Vaastu

01 Feb 05,, 11:45

" was trying to throw light on the man in the machine, the men behind it, the training standards and the overall military objectives."

The point was the USA would never have built such a totally limited plane. The MiG-29 would not fit into American combat doctrine. It was simply to limited of a plane...

"The mig may serve the 'threat evaluation role' in the west but in countries like India it is a frontline fighter pitted against neighbouring F-16s, and hence this debate is very pertinant."

Well India like a lot of other nations bought the MiG-29 due to the Russians twisting arms and selling cheap. The Mirage 2000E/D was the prefered plane. The same with the Yugoslavians and Iraqis. Even Burma sacked a top officer when he pointed out the MiG-29 was less capable then the Mirage 2000 and no match for the F-16s they would face...

If you guys would try and drop the pretences of comparing the families and focus on one region the discussion would change pace you might say...

"But still their competence with the F16 bLk50/60 is is what i m still sceptical about."

Wouldn't even bother to compare them if I were you.

"The neighbouring F16's can even be shot down by our BVR capable mig21 upg . They offer nearly no resistance or edge to pakistan due to their lack of BVR."

We are talking about Pakistan...

F-16 has a better record than the MiG-29 only because it is the older aircraft and while the whole world knew of the fighter from the1970s the Mig-29 was unheard of until the late 80s, although more Airforces fly the MiG-29s now because no wise country would buy an aircraft like the F-16 with maintainence problems and problems with spares that was alot slower and less capable then a MiG-29 in WVR and BVR combat no matter what the range and speed.

Thailand, Turkey the RNoAF and Israel grounded their F-16s after structural and engine related crashes while the USAF itself grounded nearly 400.

The MiG-29s rugged airframe and electrical hardware makes it a better plane by far. Pakistans interest in the F-16 has also declined. Operating delicate jets like F-16s and Gripens from hot blazing desert countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, is where it gets impossible.

Mr_Vaastu

01 Feb 05,, 11:48

"I am damn sure that if they flew the falcon and the Israelis/US flew the Migs you would still make the kills. You cant put a camel driver into a cadillac and expect him to beat a schumacher."

America would never build a limited plane like the MiG-29 and we sure as hell would never deploy it anywhere.

Israel would never buy a plane like the MiG-29 either.

Which is why the USAF after shitting their pants, bought off all those nuclear capable Moldovian MiG-29s before they could be auctioned off to Iran while Israel still keeps sucking its thumbs :tongue: , begging America for those much awaited F-16 spares and troubleshooting the defective engine and airframe problems.

http://www.fabulousfulcrums.de/Tails/Tail_USA.jpg

Mr_Vaastu

01 Feb 05,, 11:49

The Fulcrum has NOT shot down any F-117s, laddie. You're getting bad gouge.

No F-117 has not been lost in ANY air-to-air engagement.

The F-117 that never made it home : http://serbnews.com/f117.html

Dima

01 Feb 05,, 19:17

Which is why the USAF after shitting their pants, bought off all those nuclear capable Moldovian MiG-29s before they could be auctioned off to Iran while Israel still keeps sucking its thumbs :tongue: , begging America for those much awaited F-16 spares and troubleshooting the defective engine and airframe problems.

http://www.fabulousfulcrums.de/Tails/Tail_USA.jpg

YEA, MOLDOVA, I'M MOLDOVAN, LOL, YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

yea, we sold America 21 aircraft in total for only about $40 million ni total, since the average price of a MiG 29 is $20-$25 million, we should have received $420-$525 million, oh well

http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd20/20mold.htm

BUT, the MiG 29C's were not nuclear capable

does someone have the amount of each sold, i don't remember exactly, but wasn't it something like this

6-8 MiG-29C's
14-16 MiG 29A's
2 MiG 29UB's

avon1944

08 May 05,, 10:20

> Mr_Vastu
> I decided to start this thread that would lead to the final verdict after
> a Blitzkrieg of intelligent posts.
This website is not going to change anybody's "religeon" in competition between say, the F-16C versus the MiG.-29S!
It is the typical high T/W fighter versus a low wing load high

maneuverability fighter.
The F-16C is the high T/W fighter and the MiG.-29S is the low wing loading maneuvering fighter.

> And finally, to add the "coup de grace" to this thread the MiG-29 is the
> ‘Falcon Hunter’ as :
> The Mig-29 is faster than the F-16 : Mach 2.35 as compared to Mach 1.9
■- Yes but in the area of about 30,000 feet and speeds of 450mph to transonic

the F-16 has the acceration. The MiG. should fight the high AOA battle.

> The Mig-29 has better range : High-speed interception range of 410 km
> as compared to 389 km
■- Incorrect, if the MiG.-29 had greater range, then the Mikoyan designers

would not had made range increase with each modification. The F-16 as combat

has shown can carry a good ordnance load and have good attack radius. It

wasn't until the 1990's that the MiG.-29's were given the air to refueling

capability.

The Mig-29 has a higher ceiling : Above 60,000 ft. as compared to 50,000 ft.
■- Yes, its ceiling is higher but the effective turn & burn dogfighting

altitudes are 40,000 and lower.

> The Mig-29 has a better climb rate : AoA for Mig = 45 deg. ; AoA for F-16
> = 25 deg.
■- Yes the MiG.-29 have a high AOA capability but to offset this the F-16's

higher T/W allows it to perform vertical maneuvers the MiG.-29 can not!

The Mig-29 has a 30mm cannon compared to the F-16s 20mm Vulcan
■- This is an apples versus oranges type arguement. The MiG.-29's 30mm cannon

by all rights should be able to kill another aircraft with just a few hits.

(It doesn't always work that way.) The F-16's 20mm cannon that fires a great

volumn of fire, a rate of fire between 4,000 and 6,000 rpm.

> The Mig-29 has better Radar aerial target detection range : 80 km as
> compared to 50-60 km
■- The new radar of the MiG. has improved and in some ways better than the

F-16's in terms of range. The F-16's is more resistance to spoof/deception

jamming.

The Mig-29 has better engines and BVR AAMs than the F-16
■- The engines of the MiG. are more powerful but don't equate total power to

higher quality. The F-16's engines are more fuel efficient and maintenance is

easier. The MiG.'s engines require less maintenance BUT.... the number of

hours of which it can fly before the engine has to be replaced is a far far

shorter number of hours.

> The Mig-29 has been credited with an F-117 ‘Night Hawk’ kill, so the
> non-stealth Falcon would be too easy a kill
■- Noooo! The F-117 kill was done by upgraded SAM-3 after being detected by a mobile radar that was almost directly in the path of the F-117.

This same arguement can be made in comparing the F/A-18C to either of these

other two aircraft. This time the MiG.-29 would be the T/W fighter and the

F/A-18 would be the low wing loading -maneuver fighter and, the same

performance arguements can be made.

> ajaybhutani
> The F16 mostly have an advantage of using the AWAC radar cover which the
> Mig29s mostly donot have
AWACS is no more of an advantage because the MiG.'s have GCI.

> mig 29 airframe is much more capable than f16
Not better just different.

> troung
> "The Mig-29 has better engines and BVR AAMs than the F-16 "
NO, the AA-12 has been a disappointment to the Russians. That is why the AA-10 is still in service.

> The Mig-29 has been credited with an F-117 ‘Night Hawk’ kill
That was the mass media that gave credit to a MiG.-29, when all the dust settled the sam site got the credit it deserved.

> America would never build a limited plane like the MiG-29
That is true. The MiG.-29 is to basic for US services. All the things that makes air combat effective from the "human interface/human engineering standpoint would have to be improved for a US aircraft.

In conclusion, if combat is any judge the F-16 is the clear winner! The Mig.-29S should trying and keep the speed down, use its high AOA, keep the altitude down around 20,000 feet and, use the horizontal plane as much as possible. The F-16 should push for the higher speed -350+ mph, higher altitude and, fight in the verticle plane. The only type of aircraft the MiG.-29 has killed are; 1-Cessna, 4-Su-22M-3K's, 5-MiG.-29's, 1-Yak-40 and, an unconfirmed kill of an Ethiopian Su-27. That is 11 kills versus 28-MiG.-29's have been shot down!

??/92 a USAF F-16C killed an Iraqi MiG.-25. The first kill with a Slammer!

03/24/99 Dutch F-1A MLU killed a Yugoslavian MiG.-29 with a Slammer.

The IDF/AF and USAF have not killed an MiG.-29.
While the MiG.-29 can do the tail slide and the cobra, it can not perform a double Emmelman, starting at 20,000 feet, at 325mph and, climbing. Just a difference in design philosophy.